Mid Week Musings

Mid Week Musings

        Sooo,  Brock Turner, convicted (and admitted) rapist, leaves prison after serving a  mere three months, which is half of the ludicrous original sentence of six months. It is worthy of note that if anything positive can be attributed to this farce, and by farce I mean the sentencing, certainly not the crime, it is that the California legislature by  unanimous vote closed the loophole which allowed  Judge Aaron Persky to sentence  Turner to six months in jail rather than a longer term in jail for sexually assaulting an intoxicated, unconscious woman outside a fraternity party. Of course, Turner was "our kind of people,"  meaning either white, connected, wealthy, or all three.

       The misogyny demonstrated by Turner's depraved actions, his father for trivializing it in a pre-sentencing letter, and the judge for buying it, are staggering in implication. And while this case wasn't about race, specifically,  Judge Persky issued a prison sentence of three years in a 2014 case with similar circumstances, in which the convicted party, Raul Ramirez, an immigrant from El Salvador, plead guilty to felony sexual penetration by force. Naturally, Ramirez was brown, poor, and used a translator in court, while Brock Turner was a "Stanford man."

        Rape has long been the stepchild in what tend to be relatively uniform criminal codes for other crimes.  Until the mid 1970s, in most states a husband, estranged or not,  who brutally sexually assaulted his wife could not even be charged with rape. What is really pathetic about this is that the laws regarding this issue derive from  conservative  European Christian views regarding the marital relationship and wifely "duties."   These same Christianity based "morals" had a great deal to do with markedly different penalties for  White and Black crimes  in the south. These sentencing differences were at the core of Furman v Gregg and Mclaughlin v Florida. In the first, the death penalty was found to be awarded (that sounds weird, like it was a prize!) to Black defendants far more than Whites for the same crime, especially rape.  Mclaughlin (1962) overturned Florida's law which actually made it a crime for habitual cohabitation by two unmarried people of opposite sex, if one is black, and the other, white.

        In the Turner case, and a similarly nauseating recent one in Colorado (two years of work or school release), white upper class defendants were the recipients of what can only be viewed as preferential treatment based on race, economics and social standing. In both cases the law isn't at fault, but the judges certainly were. Sentencing guidelines vary from state to state, but are semi- consistent, with Florida's being among the strictest, especially for statutory rape ("Jessica's Law").  Allowing judges the kind of irrevocable leeway demonstrated in the Turner case, however, essentially annuls the will of lawmakers.

        While the law is, or is supposed to be, colorblind, Judges like Aaron Persky have no such constraints. It is a national scandal.  

        In another GMA item, researchers in Russia claim to have detected a radio signal which isn't merely random noise, but some sort of modulated  signal coming, supposedly, from a point in space 95 light years away.  This may well be true.  I personally believe we as humans are supremely egotistical  when we boldly aver that we are alone in the universe,  based on our (or some peoples')  creation myth,  which is essentially "God like us best."  It is conceptually quixotic  that we put all other cultures' creation explanations into the category of "myth",  but "we" (Christians, Jews and Muslims) actually have the Creation Story. You know the step by step eye witness account even before there were any witnesses?!

        What is lost in all the kerfuffle is that even assuming, and it's far from even "probable",  that 1)  there might have been an intelligence associated with such a signal and 2) it came from a source 95 light years away and 3) Einstein was correct,  the  signal would  had to have been sent almost a century ago, and the source is 551,241,120,000,000 ( 551.2 trillion miles!) away. A lot could happen in 100 years and that scale of miles, huh?

       

        This is just an opinion, but do we have stiff enough penalties for identity theft? I think not. Considering the aggregate potential for harm represented by some public servant stealing lists of personal data, and the struggle some have had to endure to restore personal credit and privacy, I feel this crime is far worse than, as an example, a non-violent burglary. If nothing more it is burglary writ larger in scope. The fact that these crimes tend to be seen, again based on the perpetrators, as more "white collar" than others involving less economic damage,  tends to minimalize the scale of the individual victim's possible damage.

        The Federal Trade Commission reported recently that as of 2010 more than 15  million Americans had their identities stolen. The amount of money lost to identity theft measures in the billions of dollars every year, and about one out of every 20 consumers will have their identities stolen this year. Identity theft even extends beyond the grave, as some thieves take the identities of deceased victims.

        Identity theft, though  common, is a relatively new crime. In the past, many state law codes  classified  this type of criminal behavior as false impersonation, forgery, theft by deception, or other similar terms. crimes. Today, some states still use these laws to punish identity theft crimes. It is a hopeful sign that more states have  enacted specific identity theft laws that target this type of behavior.

        We see a Bernie Maddoff  jailed and we rejoice, but in the end, it was just money, and those who lost it had plenty and can write off the amount which wasn't restored to them. No victim of  Maddoff  is on public assistance, rejected for credit, or has  had a car repossessed. Not only were most Maddoff victims middle or upper class persons, there is court mandated machinery in place to recoup much of what was lost (about 58% so far) due to his Ponzi scheme.  In some identity theft cases, the actual damage to the victim is far greater in the sense of ruined  credit rating, and difficulty clearing their name. State laws may require restitution, when loss can be directly shown, but no state actually assigns public employees to help with recovery. Complicating that,  many of those who commit the crime have long since disposed of the ill gotten gains.

         Maddoff is doing time, more  because he crapped where he ate, than for the nature of the crime. His true "crime" was a clear violation of the upper class rich white guy code - "Thou shalt not rip off thy peer group."  Lehman and Bear Stearns execs lost more and hurt investors worse (aggregate financial loss) in the 2009 housing bubble collapse - no jail time! ID theft is epidemic and hurts ordinary people. Perpetrators should be jailed similarly to Maddoff,(150 years) but most aren't.  Florida has enacted some of the more stringent State ID theft laws. Yet one would have to be at the top of an epic ring with large stolen assets to get even close to the FL maximum of 40 years. This in spite of the fact that many ordinary persons who are victimized will suffer relatively far more, and longer  than Maddoff's victims.          

Monday Musings

Monday Musings

         As usual, 15 minutes of GMA is ammo for the day. Let's get the best out of the way first. After the homage paid Beyoncé, Rihanna and Britney (doesn't anyone have two names anymore?), the voiceover announced that some guy named Kanye went on a 12 minute rant. Cut to the video of Mr. West, college educated and supposedly very bright; just ask him! West, the son of a PhD English professor, and himself an English major in college, starts with "I'mma talk..." At which point ABC thankfully cut away, sparing us yet another wasted 12 minutes of West's hot, bloviating, self absorbed rhetoric. I'm going into shaky ground now, but...

       I had several African American colleagues during my 20 years of High school teaching post Navy. One  was a charming woman  who taught World History, another was an administrator. Two others, both  male, taught  biology and US History.  One thing they all had in common was that no one had ever convinced them that speaking standard English was to be avoided because it was "Acting White."

       They perceived the reality of success in any occupation which has a public interface which is that, regardless of background, ethnicity or geographical origins, standard English, like it or not, remains the  language of successful business, education and public endeavor in this country. One of the hardest biases for me to overcome is  the internal  "shitkicker"  alarm which sounds every time I hear  mush mouthed, Southern, mangled pronunciation and syntax of someone like, say the entire cast of Duck Dynasty. Similarly, I have attempted over the years to rid myself of the trashy western Maryland  jargon I heard growing up, albeit never at home.  In fact, in two miserable years in Frostburg Md. I almost came to believe that the "th" digraph had been repealed. "Like that" in Western Marylandese somehow became "Like at dare". One might "Go downa crick, jump the bob war fence and start a far!"  One could go "over air," "down air" etc.  

        When speaking in any public setting, those of us raised with that idiom who know better don't speak like that, lest we be deemed uneducated rubes. Mr. West, on the other hand, almost assuredly reverts to mush mouth slang in public  intentionally, attempting to convince  others of his creds as a street- wise guy. The fact that he's almost invariably rude and inappropriate needs no proof, res ipsa  loquitur.  Quite the opposite, he actually went to grammar school in Nanjing China where his mother was a full professor. He followed that with a college scholarship, which he abandoned in favor of hip-hop, an occupation which seems to revolve around the concept of "How much can I shade/disrespect others without getting shot?"

  

         So, back to the beginning. English isn't a white language, regardless of origins. It's the international language of business and commerce. Ask my British Indian friend, Arti Kumar, PhD. OBE. She is neither Caucasian or British by birth . Ask Bishop Desmond Tutu. Ask the black citizens  of any number of African nations. Also ask the friends I referred to at the onset, who also get it. Better yet ask the POTUS and First Lady of the United States. Then, Mr. West, why not make a positive difference by setting a decent example of public behavior! One shoot from the hip, mouth off before thinking, appeal to the worst of human nature,  a la Donald Trump is already one too many.

                Next was a brief blurb in the continuing saga of the Epi-pen. In today's WTF? moment, Mylan Pharma  announced that it will manufacture a generic equivalent of the product at about half the price. Whaaaat?  One supposes that this might calm the furor over the huge price increase for the on-brand model. What Mylan obviously hopes will "slip under the radar" here, is that it avoids the precedent of a major drug manufacturer having to admit its own greed and reduce an outrageously increased  brand name price due to public opinion.

        Meanwhile, Mylan obviously believes that enough doctors will continue prescribing by brand name that the $600 dollar  Epi-pen will continue  selling at the new extortionate pricing. MDs are as much to blame as Mylan in a sense, because both the Adrenaclik and the also available generic epinephrine auto injector  provide the exact same dose of the exact same drug for a fraction of the cost. In the UK, branded Epi-pens that sell for over $600 in the US, cost $117 ! Remember, this is simply a device to deliver about $1.00 worth of a generic medication, no more, no less.

       When Mylan CEO, Heather Bresch  produces her myriad lame excuses for the recent price hike, she essentially says it shouldn't matter, because in Breschworld, everyone has insurance and low co-pays for drugs.  The flawed concept that drug prices don't matter because of insurance ignores the fact that insurance rates increase as the insurer's costs do. Of course in the real world, Medicare and Medicaid are forbidden by a 2006 law from  negotiating or paying reduced prices for prescription drugs, so we taxpayers will continue buying the $600 version.

        And finally:

        In one of myriad lies promulgated and sponsored by the Rick Scott led Trump Super PAC, the claim is made that "In Hillary Clinton's America... (I didn't know it was hers!) -illegal immigrants will get Social Security and jump to the head of the line."

            Not so, for several reasons. First, if the Dream Act were to be enacted (it isn't and is on hold by federal court decision) the only former "illegals" who would be eligible for anything would be persons who had already paid into Social Security. As of today, these workers are paying into the system, if their employers are honest, and as long as they remain undocumented they will get nothing back.

       Second the "head of the line" statement is simply wrong. There is not, nor has there ever been any such provision or suggestion.

        Finally, neither the "Dream Act" or any other legislation, pending or otherwise has Mrs. Clinton's imprimateur.

        In summary, this scurrilous bundle of lies was promulgated under the leadership and  nominal supervision of the most successful Medicare scammer not currently in federal custody, Rick Scott.

That's correct, the same Fl Governor  Rick Scott whose wife Ann has a huge (muti million dollar) investment in Mosquito Control Services LLC of Metairie, LA.. In a remarkable coincidence, guess who we Floridians are paying to combat Zika? I guess no one in Florida needs the work? I mean, Scott brags about job creation, doesn't he?  In a related story, Scott's revocable trust (nominally under his wife's control) has a controlling interest in Solanta, a Florida network of walk in urgent care clinics, such as might be used to vaccinate against Zika when/should  such a vaccine become available? Of course he and the woman he shares a bed with (yuck. Sleep with Voldemort?) never discuss such issues, as that would be wrong!

        Also, under Scott, state-aid to mosquito control programs was reduced 40 percent, from $2.16 million to $1.29 million in 2011. Scott  ignored pleas, even from fellow Republicans, that same year when he cut a special $500,000 appropriation for the Public Health Entomology Research and Education Lab in Panama City Beach, which had been founded in 1964.

        Called PHEREC, the center was simply known as “the mosquito lab.” Already wounded by budget cuts, the lab effectively closed. Its pesticide research shut down. Scientists lost their jobs, causing the state to lose half of its mosquito researchers. This decision was decried by scientists and legislators of both parties, and they were right to do so. So now Scott lambasts the Federal Government for their efforts in dealing with a mess which might not have existed except for his (Scott's) actions.  Perhaps Rick Scott should concentrate on doing his job in Florida rather than  fictionalizing campaign propaganda .

One More and Done

        Ok, one more and done. This in regard to Herman Cain's insistence that somehow the Epi-pen price hike must be laid at the feet of every Democrat and Mrs. Clinton in particular. He further maintains in a display of ignorance more worthy of Michele Bachmann, that Epi-pen's "monopoly" is somehow illegal or different from every other copyright or patent ever issued.

       If in, say 1995, I had gone into a Godfather's Pizza store, secretly copied exactly the methods they used to make pizza and then left to open my own store, using those methods  and called it "Godfather's Pizza" I'd have been guilty of two crimes. The first and most egregious would have been the inflicting upon humanity of even more fairly  shitty Pizza. The second and a legally thornier one would have been the blatant copyright infringement I had committed. What would Godfather's CEO at the time , Herman Cain, have done? He'd have sued my ass off in court and won  and he's have been justified in doing so.

        So apparently the only time a copyright or patent isn't legal is when it's held by a company whose CEO is the daughter of a Democrat member of Congress.  Don't misunderstand - I think Heather Bresch and Mylan Pharma are blood sucking leeches for the Epi-pen price hike. They should be publicly whipped for pricing a vital drug so far above cost, especially considering that the drug itself, Epinephrine, costs less that $1 per dose in much of the world. All that said, patent protection, by its very nature creates a monopoly for the holder until its expiration. Blaming Mrs. Clinton for this is not just wrong, it's insanely wrong. In fact, it is industrialists just like Cain, who has been on the boards of Nabisco, Whirlpool and several other companies who are the usual staunch defenders of intellectual property rights. Imagine if another company had made a sandwich cookie, chocolate on both sides with cream in the middle and called it Oreo?  Cain's head would have exploded.

  

      Of course Cain cites "excessive regulation" as the demon here and of course blames every Democrat who ever lived for it. In truth, the solution for all instances such as the Epi-pen fiasco, (and there are more and worse than this, but, it's an election ergo mud-slinging year) might well be more government regulation. Let me explain before your head explodes. When electricity became a household product in America Power generation companies immediately began stringing lines and, of course, charging customers for the use of their product.

         Many municipalities also realized that  whichever company managed to string lines into a given municipality first would probably be the only one to do so, and  therefore would have a de facto monopoly,  not by law (as with a drug or invention patent) but by circumstance , which would basically allow the electric generation entity to dictate rates to consumers, fair or not . The solution was the establishment, essentially everywhere in America, of  elected Public Utilities Commissions. Their job is to either allow or disallow rate increases  when requested by the producer. In like manner, most states do the same with Insurance. The FDA  is such  a regulatory body, but with a critical difference. While the FDA can control when or if a drug is declared safe and effective for sale and  public use, it lacks the authority to exert any control whatsoever on the price charged by a drug manufacturer. Look at how incredibly much money Big  Pharma spends on lobbying and you'll know why this is so.

         What Cain probably doesn't know, or will never admit if he does,  is that 58%  of Pharmaceutical Industry lobbying funds  in the form of campaign donations in 2015 went to Republicans, who already have and have had a majority in both houses of the US Congress. Price controls are a touchy subject in a capitalist economy, but we already acknowledge that certain services (as shown in the case of Insurance and Public Utilities) are too essential to allow robber baron capitalists to use monopoly to abuse the public. Similarly, certain drugs, such as Epinephrine in a push/click delivery system are, to many with severe allergies, a life and death issue. Roosevelt and  Taft broke up the giant trusts of the turn of the century, but they weren't patent holders, just monopolists.  We have held patents and copyrights sacred since 1789 when the Constitution established them.  Controlling price reasonably without dismantling patent protection might be a good compromise.

        In any case, Herman Cain, who has served big business and numerous companies with trade secrets and patents and copyrights for  over 40 years, knows better than this. Unfortunately his lack of moral fiber and character have left him un-objective in this matter.    

Below the Bottom of the Barrel

        Just when you think (hope) that perhaps  campaign rhetoric and political double speak have  reached the bottom of the barrel, the bottom drops out. I actually ran across an op-ed citing Herman Cain (who wasn't able) as blaming the current furor over the recent Epi-pen price hike on first Mrs. Clinton and then Democrats in general. This represents monumental ignorance worthy of display in the Valley of the Kings.

       The gist of this screed is that Mrs. Clinton is at fault  because....well, because she's a Democrat. On the grander, and more lunatic scale, the writer than cites "Democratic control of the FDA," Democrat's insistence on "excessive  government regulation" and the granting of monopolies to drug companies in that order.  

       Where to start?  Take the most obvious lie first. Excessive regulation in whose eyes? Not in the minds of those who were denied Thalidomide because the FDA was unsure of it's possible side effects  at a time when European women were delivering seriously compromised babies. Of course the Epi-pen brouhaha isn't about regulation in any way, but given the chance to smear any regulatory agency , why not?  While the process may be lengthy, the aim is to assure  safety, and even then sometimes the law of unintended consequences jumps up  - can you say Vioxx, Ambien and Adderall? 

         The writer apparently yearns for the  good old days when you could slap a label on a bottle  of  swamp water flavored with licorice and containing 25% alcohol, tempered with morphine, and sell it over the counter.  Many patent medicines had dangerous ingredients, not just potentially toxic substances like arsenic, mercury and lead, but cocaine, heroin and high concentrations of alcohol. So who was the liberal scum who pushed the Congress to create a federal oversight agency to protect consumers? Why, it was that Republican Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt! Blaming the FDA for an agency created 110 years ago seems a bit daft.

        Second, the writer then implies, nay, actually states, that the FDA "gives manufacturers patents which eliminate competition, keeping prices high."  Actually, Sparky,  Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright  and Patent Clause, is the culprit. You might not like it, but blame Madison and Hamilton in 1789, not the FDA in 2016.

       Finally, the writer than implies that the price hike is the result of regulation prohibiting competition because "in a free market....etc, etc, ad nauseum!"  First, and foremost, one  linchpin of capitalist endeavor is the right to benefit from one's own efforts. That's what patents and copyrights are all about. 'Tis pity this moron's readers don't see past the partisan smoke and mirrors and understand how directly self contradictory this line of "reasoning" is. 

      Every major industry and industrialist in the US dearly  regards patent protection as an absolute essential. Of all the aforementioned, however, no industry so jealously holds to it as Big Pharma.  Of all the industrial categories which spend big bucks  lobbying the US Congress, none spends as much as Big Pharma. With an outlay in 2015  of  $3.395 BILLION, Pharma far outdistanced the second place Insurance industry's $2.3 billion!  Of course they are lobbying a Republican controlled Congress, but this isn't really a partisan issue to anyone other than Mr. Cain, perhaps.

       Finally, for the discussion we should perhaps really be having: How much profit is too much? Why, in a relatively flat economy with a low cost of living increase should the CEO of any corporation see a salary increase of  671%  as Heather Bresch of Mylan did ? Why should a business executive such as Robert Nardelli (formerly of  Home Depot) get paid $210 million for being fired?  Richard S. Fuld Jr.'s face was the universal symbol of Wall Street greed. He walked  away from Lehman a wealthy man who earned over $500 million. But taxpayers were left with a $700 billion bill to rescue Wall Street and an economy in crisis. Big Pharma salaries soar far above the average.

        This extortion of consumers, many of whom have no choice but to use their product,  is what not just Mylan but all Pharma companies do as their  proprietary drugs near "end of patent" protection. In fact, in just over a year, from December, 2014 to January 2016,  9 frequently prescribed medications from 6 different manufacturers saw a price increase of a larger percentage then  the Epi-pen. The leader was Daraprim,  which went from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill, a 5,500% hike!  This of course made the loathsome Martin Shkreli the most hated man in America, albeit briefly, as his 15 minutes have elapsed. 

        Lesser known but equally reprehensible, Novum  Pharma's  Novacort saw a 3,000% jump over the same period. The difference?  Novacort isn't a life saving drug, like Daraprim or the  Epi-pen's adrenalin. Additionally, drug companies rationalize away any sense of guilt by pointing out that insurance covers most of the cost, while omitting  the concomitant  fact that insurance costs will increase as a result. This also is of no consolation  to those on  Medicare/Medicaid who will  have to pay full co-pay based on the much higher cost, since a 2006 Bush administration law promised Big Pharma that the government wouldn't negotiate drug prices.           

       And the final insult? The Epi-pen patent isn't for the drug (epinephrine, or synthetic adrenaline, which the body secretes naturally) which it injects.  Jokichi Takamine first isolated epinephrine in 1901. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the most important medications needed in a basic health system. It is widely available as a generic medication. The wholesale cost in the developing world is between $0.10 and $0.95 a vial , yeah, that's less than a buck per dose! Epi-pen's patent covers the injector system only!  The difficulty has been in getting alternative delivery methods approved, and there is one, Adrenaclick, which costs about $$144  per 2 injector Pack  at Walmart.  For the math challenged, that's about 1/5 of the cost of Epi-pen which does exactly the same thing. The Epi-pen 2 pack will cost you $630 at the same Walmart. Why? Because drug companies "encourage"  doctors, in many cases, to prescribe their brand specific form of a drug. This is certainly the case with the Epi-pen.

        Of course, as previously mentioned all this is Hillary Clinton's fault, right?  As a footnote, in 2015, 58% of Big Pharma donations went to Republican members of Congress!

Syrian Tragedy

         I saw a meme today showing four identical photos of the  miserable little Syrian boy with dirt and blood on his face. Heart rending in the very least, unless you believe as some do that unless he's a Syrian Christian, tough shit, next case. I've seen a lot of these and this particular one is aimed at blaming the plight of this waif on the last four presidents' foreign policy.

       I've been thinking for some weeks now that as we continue piling on and blaming different entities and philosophies for the situation in Syria and the 100,000 dead and perhaps a million refugees. As a historian, I believe there comes a time when we need to first, look at cause , effect and then argue over the fix. The persons directly to blame for the Syrian disaster don't live in the US, never have. while the Invasion of Iraq did destabilize the region, a Syria with a strong and popularly supported government would probably not have become the killing field it is today. The Assad regime, father and son, were so hated by their citizens that there was already serious civil unrest well before the Iraq invasion. The Civil war which broke out was hijacked by ISIS and turned into what it is today, which is the largest clusterf**k I've ever seen regarding who's shooting who. Also blame the persons doing a lot of the indiscriminate killing - ISIS.

        We have gotten to the point in our Government, especially the US House, where it matters very little who did what anyplace overseas, what matters is "How can we blame it on the current administration or its policies." We should never forget that the terrorists are the bad guys here. If we did nothing, the killing would continue.  They are the ones doing the killing. There is no "wise old man" regarding the current situation, as it has never existed before. As a very quick example of how off the rails the Congress is, and yeah, it's primarily the far right leaners who play the game, consider this: The year is 1983, old "Talk tough" Ronnie is Pres. there were four separate attacks on US installations from April 18 1983 to September 1984. Those  four separate  terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the 1980s killed over 240 including the videotaped torture and execution of the CIA station chief .

        What foreign action did the Reagan administration take?  None! There was a reorganization of how forces are deployed (over Military objections) and, oh yeah, we secretly shipped Hawk missiles to Iran and hoped they'd put pressure on Hezbollah to stop terrorist activities against US interests in Lebanon. With the proceeds we illegally funded another guerilla war in Nicaragua. But back to the middle east. A bi-partisan committee of the US House was convened to investigate what went wrong. Remember this was after the second attack on the Marine barracks killed more than 200. The Committee's report made recommendations on ways to enhance security, and criticized military commanders on the ground for lax security. There was no mention of the President or Secretary of  State. Contrast that with the 4 deaths at Benghazi, defended less than was desirable because the CIA was using the annex to provide weapons to Libyan (good guys) and didn't want to attract attention. Mrs. Clinton acceded to their wishes. Following the 1983 committee's recommendation for security upgrades, there were two more attacks! In March '84 the CIA station chief, as mentioned above, was kidnapped and killed on video TV. Reagan watched, and was desolate. However, in September, 6 months later, when the Beirut Embassy annex was bombed and more Americans killed, the recommendations hadn't been implemented. Again, no one pointed fingers at the President or SecState. Reagan's response was to liken the failure to beef up security to redoing your kitchen "You know, it never seems to get done as quickly as we'd like"(!!) Yes, he actually used that analogy!         

        So, if you're gonna blame US foreign policy for the current lamentable situation, you ought to at least have a "better idea" of what should have been done. So far, and believe me I've given this a lot of thought, there are only two real points at which we could have acted (or not acted) in the here and now (last 20 years) in such a manner as to change history. The first, obviously, don't go to Iraq and destabilize the regime. don't tell Americans "We won't engage in nation building," and then commit to doing just that.  The second opportunity came soon after when the rebuilding of Iraq was sidetracked by Donald Rumsfeld's edict that no former military or law enforcement persons from the Saddam Hussein regime were to be included in the new security and police forces. With one hideously bad decision, Rumsfeld, who had far too much power for his weak President to counter, alienated and made paupers of many of Iraq's brightest and most experienced public personnel, almost driving them to the arms of  ISIS in a sense.

        Try as I may, this is all I got. Blaming Bush 41, Clinton or Obama may make some feel good, as I'm sure it does, but it's simply not realistic. In much the same way, the continued harangue on Benghazi  where four died after funds for enhanced security were requested and denied by the same Congress which then laid all the blame at another Clinton's feet, is ludicrous. The deaths were tragic, but pale by comparison to Reagan's  inaction when there were about 240 more deaths. So in summary, if you're angry at seeing photos like those of that poor child, blame the brutal animals who do the killing in the name of God.

Otherwise, unless you wish to put boots - your boots-  on the ground, well, you know. 

Contradictions

        This is for all those who have stooped to everything but specifically blaming the President for the heavy rains that have caused flooding in Louisiana:

        The President declared a disaster within hours of being presented with the facts re: flooding in southern and central Louisiana. FEMA is, and has been, on the ground, and more than 85,000 have applied for emergency aid. This disaster has flooded TV news as well. Contrary to Mike Huckabee's assertion that "If the President came down , cameras would come with him, etc...." Hey, arse bag they've been there almost since hour one and are ubiquitous (look it up Huckleberry) on network news. Comparing this to Katrina response and FEMA inaction, makes the Obama administration's response and competency shine like the sun when compared to Bush and "Brownies"  ineptitude.

        What I find most remarkable,  coming from Huckabee and his far right Neanderthals, and as Trump will doubtless show today (8/19),  is the feigned concern for people whom they wouldn't cross the street to piss on if they were in flames. The implication now, smearing Obama for not coming to the flood zone, which is  wider and much more difficult  to define than NOLA post Katrina, that Federal disaster funds should pour forth like water, is in direct conflict with these same talking heads' positions when and if those same people needed affordable health care.

        Let me use reductio ad absurdum here: If you didn't (or couldn't)  buy federal or private flood insurance, yet insisted in living in the floodplain of a major river, it's ok,. we're here to help, have $33,000 dollars. (FEMA max). We know it's a natural disaster, but this one's on us. We also agree and are well aware that you failed to protect your house by buying flood insurance, either because you didn't think it could happen to you, or as likely, because it was expensive and you simply couldn't afford it. The lesson here and in New Orleans , 2005? We would be billions ahead helping subsidize flood insurance, but only if people buy it!

        Now let's take another natural disaster, not related to where you should or should not have built your home - Cancer. Where's FEMA to help with costs? Even if you did absolutely nothing to place yourself in harm's way, but couldn't afford to buy health insurance, tough noogies,  You lose. You must fight the bureaucracy via Medicaid vice using the Insurance you can't afford. Unless of course you availed yourself of the Affordable Care Act, which of course Huckabee and his cast of mindless morons loathe and never wanted to be an option for you.

        So a quick recap; if you're sick and poor, screw you, says the Far Right who hates the ACA. If you're wet and poor, however,  hold on, we're coming! If you are sick, you need a doctor, but don't look to us (the Far Right) to help, because we hate universal health coverage.  But  if you're wet, in Huckabee land, even if you could have afforded flood insurance, federally subsidized, by the way, just like health coverage under the ACA for those who can't afford the entire cost,  we gotcha, but it doesn't count if the President doesn't personally come and see you. Really? This may be the most mind numbingly contradictory political point of view ever. Property owners with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies are receiving government subsidies to live in areas with high flood risk. This might well be called "The Affordable Flood Insurance Plan" and it runs at a deficit in many years.   

        One wonders if this is as I painted it or if these frauds simply see a chance to smear the President and are so caught up in their own vile partisan sniping that they fail to see the inherent hypocrisy of subsidizing flood insurance but not health care. As Father Duffy told Timmy during the debriefing after Michael Davy passed an entire  cheese sandwich through his nose, "It's a mystery, my son!"   

Looking at scenes from Milwaukee

        Looking at the scenes from Milwaukee I am  reminded of Detroit in the 1960s. The cause , largely the same - poverty amplified by racism. I will not even hint that the racism is one sided, because it isn't. That may not be the in vogue Far Left thing to say, but truth is truth. Just as far too many white Americans carry prejudicial attitudes regarding persons of color, the inverse is clearly true as well. Add to this the ubiquitous handgun which is the fashion accessory of  too many black youths. Aggravate it by a lack of self control which causes the seemingly most minor disagreement to flare into an urban shootout. Stir it with Law Enforcement officers who see a suspect running away from them with a handgun (and sometimes without one) as a clear and present danger to their personal safety, and here we are; policemen shot and shot at, cars and businesses burning.  

        It also reminds me of the scene from one of the best films ever made which didn't win a  Best Picture Oscar. In Grand Canyon, Danny Glover  (Simon) has a contretemps with a young urban black man (Shaun Baker, as "Rocstar")  over what seems to be the most minor of  issues, yet the ever present gun materializes in the youth's hand.

Simon: "I've gotta ask you for a favor. Let me go my way here. This truck's my responsibility, and now that the car's hooked up to it, it's my responsibility too."

Rocstar: "Do you think I'm stupid? Just answer that question first."

Simon: "Look, I don't know nothing about you; you don't know nothing about me. I don't know if you're stupid, or some kind of genius. All I know is that I need to get out of here, and you got the gun. So I'm asking you, for the second time, let me go my way here."

Rocstar: "I'm gonna grant you that favor, and I'm gonna expect you to remember it if we ever meet again. But tell me this, are you asking me as a sign of respect, or are you asking because I've got the gun?"

Simon: "Man, the world ain't supposed to work like this. I mean, maybe you don't know that yet. I'm supposed to be able to do my job without having to ask you if I can. That dude is supposed to be able to wait with his car without you ripping him off. Everything is supposed to be different than it is."

Rocstar: "So what's your answer?"

Simon: "You ain't got the gun, we ain't having this conversation."

Rocstar: "That's what I thought: no gun, no respect. That's why I always got the gun."

        This may well be the most blatant statement of the "gun" mentality ever committed to film. It isn't color specific either, but rather is indicative of the nature of a life lived in an environment where there seems not to be any hope for anything better and the pecking order is determined by who is the (strongest/deadliest/craziest). All these emotions tend to be amplified by constant exposure in all media to material things which are out of the reach of the poor, yet as we are constantly told, essentials to happiness ( insert any of thousands of high end brand names here).  

        In the above scene, when Simon says "...maybe you don't know that yet" there is a fatal flaw. What the screenwriter, the usually brilliant  Lawrence Kasdan,  misses is the sad reality that Rocstar, if he remains in and a victim of his current situation, will never "know that." (that "the world ain't supposed to work like this")  For too many youths in places like Milwaukee, that's exactly the way it works.

  

      There was a time, from 1940 to 1973, when young impoverished men of all races in America were caused to "know that " by being forced into something bigger than their  neighborhood because of mandatory federal service. It happened to be the  WWII and Cold War draft. As it stands now, unemployment among the Black community nationwide is about twice that of white citizens. Among young urban males it is far in excess of that. The same is true of some white populations in some areas where crystal Meth is ravaging younger (and sadly not so young) population segments.

        While I don't favor a military draft, except in wartime and I hope that  doesn't happen, I would propose that a 2 year period of some sort of  mandatory  national service might not be a bad idea, being potentially beneficial to the nation as a whole. While I'm not specifically thinking of anything like the CCC, it isn't a bad  model.   

       The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families as part of the New Deal. It was eventually expanded to young men ages 17–28. A major part of  FDR's  New Deal that provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments. The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, and to relieve families who had difficulty finding jobs during the Great Depression in the United States. At the same time, it implemented a general natural resource conservation program in every state and territory. Maximum enrollment at any one time was 300,000; in nine years 3 million young men participated in the CCC, which provided them with shelter, clothing, and food, together with a small wage of $30 (about $547 in 2015 dollars)  a month about $450 (in 2015 dollars) of which had to be sent home to their families).

       Widespread and positive public acceptance  made the CCC the most popular of all the New Deal programs.  Benefits of an individual's enrollment in the CCC included improved physical condition, heightened morale, and increased employability, as industrial technical training was also part of the program depending on location. As an example of the law of unintended consequences,  the CCC also led to a greater public awareness and appreciation of the outdoors and the nation's natural resources; and the continued need for a carefully planned, comprehensive national program for the protection and development of natural resources. During the time of the CCC, enrollees planted nearly 3 billion trees, constructed trails, lodges and related facilities, upgraded most state and national  parks, updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings and public roadways in remote areas.

       Despite its popular support, the CCC was never a permanent agency. It depended on emergency and temporary Congressional legislation and funding to operate. Less emphasized, but an integral part was the fact that the CCC ran with a discipline very like the military.

       While I would enthusiastically endorse such a program for its obvious applications in areas such as infrastructure maintenance, repair and construction as well  as environmental applications, the "unintended"  (but perhaps the most significant)  effect might well be the removal of dirt poor, disadvantaged, and angry young persons from those situations and negative peer influences  which lead to death by gunshot or overdose by age  25.

       Obviously, as an incentive to better one's personal situation, performance based deferments  for college, tech school, military service  or continuing training should be  generous, but rigorous in application.

While I can find no statistics for gang or violent crime activity among discharged 4 year military veterans, I have to believe it is far below the 18-22  year old urban youth numbers.

I'm just sayin'. 

Happy Daze

        After reading yet another comment from someone  of my approximate  age group in a letter to the editor, a pattern is emerging which I have noticed with sadness  for several months but not written about. That is that many (not enough, but many) decry some of Trump's more inflammatory comments, but all desperately believe, or rather hope,  that he can deliver on his campaign mantra "Make America Great Again." The issue is that "Great" can never be what they wish it was. 

        There's a lot happening emotionally  on several levels with these persons. First, they may not even consider themselves as bigots, but they wish non whites, LGBT persons and, to an extent, women,  would just "settle down" like in the "good old days" when we never heard much from them about their situations as second class citizens. "If we don't see it or hear about it,  it isn't  a problem" seems to be their mantra.

        Of greater concern, however is the fact that there is an incredible lack of understanding of  history and economics which is at play in Trump's harangues. Persons of my age who grew up in the late 1940s and 1950s did so as youths with very little understanding of why America was as it was during those years.

         The vast majority of Americans have no idea that there have been 35 significant recessions since 1789, when we declared ourselves to be the USA. Almost none realize that five of those actually resulted in worse economic conditions for poor Americans than the "Great Depression." Even fewer know,  or want to know,  that all five of these serious economic downturns began under  Republican administrations.  Their parents knew the economic deprivation of the 1930s all too well, but the message was lost to their children in post war euphoria and relative (for white males) prosperity. It is reminiscent of the way Irish survivors of the Great Famine never spoke of it.

        By the mid 1930s, after 6 or 7 years of the worst (actually not the worst, but the most protracted) economic downturn in our history, German activities in Europe and the need for more armaments than the combatants themselves could supply, along with government deficit spending to create jobs, the economy improved.  In late 1936, the economy tanked again. Reasons  vary depending upon which economic school of thought one credits. Keynesians assign blame to cuts in federal spending and increases in taxes at the insistence of the US Treasury, while Monetarists, such as  Milton Friedman, assign blame to the Federal Reserve's tightening of the money supply in 1936. Either way, corporations pulled back, decreased investment, unemployment  spiked back up to the area of 18% and the economy slid backward. So what did finally end the misery and put America back to work ("Make America Great") again?

       Roosevelt's promise to be "The Great Arsenal of Democracy"  in a Dec. 29,1940 speech really only formalized the process which had begun earlier with the destroyers for bases agreement and the "Lend Lease" bill. The combined effect of this was the beginning of a return to full production in US heavy industry, producing military hardware and even more profitable, expendables,  like ammunition and artillery shells.

        However, these still paled in comparison to the effects of the events of  December 7th, 1941, a year later, when Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor propelled us from the bench to the playing field on both continents. Unemployment dropped like a rock, not because of peace time prosperity's return, but for two much more significant reasons. In 1939, the entire US military strength was 334, 473. By 1942, that number was just shy of 4 million, and by 1945, there were more than 12 million Americans in uniform or dead/missing/wounded.  The second reason was that those who were not in uniform including, for the first time in many cases, women,  were at work, employed in "the War Effort." There was actually a labor shortage and industrial production paid well, even for women, who moved into supervisory roles for the first time in America. By 1945, unemployment was less than 2% of all  employable Americans.

        Many of us know this, but some don't process the results as a cause and effect exercise. During the worst of the depression, there had been precious little discretionary income for the vast percentage of American families. Necessities, such as food and shelter, consumed most of what income was brought into the household. Welfare, as it was then, left no excess. WWII changed all that for those who weren't involved in the active military. Overtime was the norm, wages soared, and ironically, there was not much to spend them on. Movies were cheap, baseball was cheap and many workers worked well in excess of 46 hours per week. All those consumable and big ticket items forgone during the worst of the depression were now in reach but unavailable,  because the facilities which might have produced them  were making bombers, jeeps, tanks, and weapons. Things like refrigerators and new cars, not affordable in 1934,  were simply unavailable in 1944! Only 749 "new" cars were produced in the years 1943-44, and were reserved for government and industrial officials (a blurry line during the War!)

        So why go into all this? I think it is critical to understand the conditions which  left the US poised in 1946 to become the economic giant of the 1950s, which is the "Happy Days" fantasy world  of the older Trump sycophant. It might not have happened that way if not for several prescient actions.

        WWI's ending and the return of a mere 3 million to the workforce had seen large unemployment figures and social unrest in the early 1920s. Determined to avoid a re- run, The President and Congress did several things proactively, The first was the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill, even before war's end, which provided for a significant  (over 4 million) number of  demobilized service persons to go to college or advanced industrial training instead of immediately flooding the job market.  The second was the brainchild of one of America's brightest and best, Truman's SecState, George C. Marshall.  Known as the Marshall Plan, but technically the "European Recovery Act,"   it was an American initiative to aid Western Europe, in which the United States gave over $12 billion (approximately $120 billion in current dollar value as of June 2016) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II. Of course this aid to Europe did two things, it kept Americans employed, it helped rebuild markets for US goods, and because we did somewhat the same, albeit less formally in Japan, we created post war markets there, as well.

        Because we now also realized that the Soviet Union also had aims in Europe and East Asia, we also opted to maintain a permanent military of more than 5 times as many as 1939. These were to be augmented by events in South Korea, which escalated the Cold War to the degree that by 1968, we had more than   3 1/2 million Americans in uniform.  These circumstances combined to create in the "Happy Days"  of my peers, economic conditions  which reflected situational factors which are essentially unique and non-replicable. Examples include:

• ·      American heavy industry turned to consumer goods, and those Americans who had piled up money in wartime had it to spend on new cars, refrigerators, and the new toy, television.· 

•        This new medium, sweeping the nation, created unprecedented access for retailers into American homes, further spurring consumer demand.
•           Wartime innovation caused a glut of new products,  US manufacturers were ready to produce them, and US consumers wanted them.
• ·           Many traditional trading partners were still rebuilding their means of production, while US facilities were at maximum output, so unemployment averaged (a very low) 4.16%  between 1953 and 1956!·       
•       Through the end of the 1950s the US was relatively self sufficient in many raw materials. That has changed dramatically over the last 6o years.
• ·           Manufacture of essentially all consumer electronics, was a domestic  bonanza during the golden age of TVs, VCRs etc., but  has shifted offshore.  The same is true for clothing manufacture.      
•             What we used to see occasionally in the mid 50s and usually referred to as "foreign cars" are now in many of our driveways, being cheaper and better warranted than most US made vehicles.
• ·       US minorities did not benefit from this post war boom to the same degree as whites. Blacks remained  in segregated and inferior schools in much of America until the very late 1950s,while the LGBT community remained largely in hiding. Women were in many cases pushed back below the glass ceiling if allowed to continue working at all. 

        Most of the conditions above are one time singularities, and many have been caused  by the Donald Trumps of this world. To believe that he, or anyone else for that matter, can recreate the United States of the mid 1950s is fatuous and unrealistic. Unfortunately, his rabid adherents know or remember little of  their own history , economics or geopolitical change, therefore they actually believe what they fantasize about, wishing for a return to Arnold's Drive-in/diner where they can hang out with Ritchie, Potsie, Ralph and the Fonze. And guess what? There aren't any colored kids or homos there!       

Odds, Ends and Outrage

Odds,  ends and outrage

        This morning's local (Orlando) news features several stories of interest which might make one say "huh?"

       Right off the bat, there is the tale of the, as yet unresolved, high speed car chase through a local residential neighborhood  which ended with a BMW sedan in the middle of a lake. Emergency rescue personnel found the occupant("s?") of the car were nowhere to be found as the car was towed back to shore. In  an inspired flash of  deductive reasoning worthy of  Sherlock Holmes, Orlando police have characterized the circumstances as "suspicious."  Really? When would  such an incident be anything but suspicious?  Can't fool those OPD guys and gals, huh?  

        Another day, another Republican't smear television ad. This time it's Mrs. Clinton making a speech in India where she speaks of the difficulties involved in legislating (in the US) against outsourcing. She isn't pro-outsourcing, she merely points out that  it is entrenched  and would be difficult to eliminate.  The implication, of course, is that outsourcing is bad and costs American jobs. Along with that is the fallacious attempt to create the impression that Mrs. Clinton is endorsing it. Of course she was speaking in India, home of Mumbai call centers and other electronic off shore data handling facilities which are used by a large majority of American corporations. These jobs are largely in the non-manufacturing sector.

        As might be expected,.  as a Senator and then Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton's  outlooks have evolved. On the other hand, someone with zero experience in actual government relations like Donald J. Trump, has no such frame of reference: Today, Donald J. Trump Collection shirts — as well as eye­glasses, perfume, cuff links and suits — are made in Bangladesh, China, Honduras and other low-wage countries. Even Trump's short lived (two years from unveiling to halting  production) Vodka label was foreign made.  Meanwhile, daughter Ivanka, a vice president at his company and frequent campaign surrogate, retails literally  hundreds of additional products under her own line of jewelry and clothing. Most  are made in China. This contradiction between Trump’s consistent business decisions and his stated political agenda illustrates the  failed attempts to  transform  an aggressive, profit-oriented huckster,  marketer and real estate mogul into a  champion of the struggling working class, which Trump is simply incapable of becoming.

        Finally, an article in the local rag is headlined "Tax returns From Clintons Show Millions in Income."  This is the local, ultra conservative  newspaper's headline appended to  an Associated Press article. One is, I suppose, to be outraged at the fact that an ex-president and former senator and secretary of state are in demand as speakers. What strikes me as truly indicative of  Far Right partisan insanity and loss of reason is that the Clintons are essentially blamed for the willingness of others to pay them large fees to speak. As a point I have made before, remember that the Clinton's average  between $200-250,000 per speech, while in 2006-7 Der Trump accepted fees of $1.5 million each for 17 speeches to just one organization!

        I believe the Clintons should be held to at least the same standard as Mr. Trump with regard to fair tax rates. Unfortunately, that is impossible as Trump consistently has refused to release this (or any other years')  tax returns. That being said, there are recent Republican public returns which can be compared to the Clinton's?  First, we need to understand that the Clintons file a joint return, while several candidates and former officials from the Right do not. This separate filing makes it far easier to obfuscate the non office holding spouse's income and tax rate. It would be extremely difficult to be more transparent regarding taxes than either the Clintons or the Obamas. OK, so here we go!

        To start with,   remember that for the last two tax years both Clintons have been private citizens, having no connection to government, ergo their income is from their position in the marketplace, with the exception of  Bill's Presidential pension and Hillary's as a Senator, which at age 62 she drew and continues to draw. Mrs. Clinton has released the previous 36 years worth of federal income tax returns, more than Bush, Romney and McCain combined! The Clintons declared a combined income of $10.6 million  which, if all was from speaking (it wasn't) , represents  about 40 speeches total.  Remember, Trump was paid more than twice that in 2006-7 for just 17 speeches!

        Of that total income, the Clinton's gave away about 10% to charity!  Even with that hefty deduction, The Clinton's marginal federal tax rate was 34.2%. Read it again - 34.2%. This makes them the only current political figures that I  can find, other than the Obamas, whose tax bill actually satisfies the "Buffet Rule" - Warren Buffett's proposal that  the 1%  should pay at least 30% in federal income tax. When all  taxes are factored in, the Clintons actually paid 45.87%  of their combined incomes to various state, local and federal taxing authorities.

        I know, "But don't others pay that kind of rate as well?" Well, since I have that kind of time, I dug up what public records I was able to find.  Before we start, Speaker Paul Ryan, a constant critic of the Clintons has seen his net worth increase by a factor of 4 (without speeches!) over the last ten years, nine of which has been in the US House, at $174,000 annual salary. (He got a raise as Speaker). But now on to those tax rates I promised:

Former VP Dick Cheney - 26%

Former President George W. Bush - 25.4%

Former VP candidate, TV personality , current moron - Sarah Palin  - 14.7%

Sen. John McCain - claimed 33%, but filed separately, not disclosing wife Cindy's taxes on more than $100 million in assets!  

Candidate Mitt Romney - (2012, last year available) - 14%!!

Candidate Barack Obama - 2012 - joint filing - 33.3%

        In summary,  of the last 16 years' worth of candidates, office holders or wannabees, the Clintons have paid the highest tax rate of  the lot, with the Obamas a close second. So when you are exposed to the ads criticizing Hillary's income from speeches, especially the Indian one referring to outsourcing, raise a middle finger, point it at the TV, and give a heartfelt raspberry. 

Another Wednesday

Another Wednesday, more stuff.

        Again, GMA and the people and commercials therein provide ample blogosphere ammunition. 

       Let's start today with yet one more desperate attempt by Tim Tebow to become relevant again in sport, any sport. This time it's professional baseball. He has signed with the Santurce Crabs of a winter league in Puerto Rico, which needless to say, is delighted to have a recognizable name as a draw for fans.  One imagines him "Tebowing" after a strikeout; or perhaps not.  Meanwhile the real deal ex Gator QB, Jesse Palmer, continues to delight as a broadcaster on GMA.

        When did the idea catch hold that the best way to assure people notice your child is to either take a common  name and customize the spelling  or to invent a name out of thin air?  I get ethnic and traditional names which have origins elsewhere, but I'm considering those names invented out of nothingness, apparently on the premise that economic disadvantage may be overcome if we just pick the right first name. A separate but common  category of this is simply deciding that if the name is a good solid name, just add "La" to it. 

      Today I saw a commercial with a pretty blonde hawking a tooth whitener, her first name scrawled under the commercial - "Cassaddee."  Really? Did you mean Cassidy? Other recently observed examples include: Harmonnee, Frooti (Pebbles as a middle name?),Clitorisandria (really),  Perpetua (may she live forever), Guuuuuurrrrrrllllll, (which at least sounds reasonable) and my favorite new boy's name "Rocket Zot" (actor Sam Worthington's son). As my rather prosaically named grandson, Jacob, might have said, "Papa,  what were they thinking?"

        Then we have the stirring,  (patriotic sounding?) music just one level below "God Bless the USA,"  urging us to hustle down to the gas station and fill up with a "full tank of freedom!" Really? We're now dispensing freedom at $1. 93 per gallon, apparently, but only at your local Marathon station.  I assume  Petrol fuels Pickup Trucks and together, they drive the  great American dream, while boosting  CO₂ emissions.

        Among the persons interviewed today were two Americans who couldn't be more different. The first was Olympic champion Dominique Dawes. Her commentary and analysis of gymnastics was simply superb, as expected, but when she admitted to being 40, I was absolutely awestruck. Having seen her in the Olympics, but not specific as to which years, I would have guessed her to be oh, maybe 26! What an absolute stunner.

                            Dominique Dawes

        On the other hand, fresh from his audition for the Vampire role in the remake of Nosferatu, we were subjected to yet another semi lucid rant by  Former NYC mayor Giuliani. His attempts to "clarify" Trump's recent foot in mouth re: "You Second Amendment people") were lame beyond belief, as were his efforts to deflect legitimate questions from George Stephanopoulos. When Giuliani asserted that "everyone in the hall understood" what Trump meant, George pointed out the stunned incredulity of  the look on the face of the man sitting right behind  Trump's left shoulder.

The immediate response was to avoid the question and do the Far Right version of "nanny nanny boo boo," pointing  out that the Pulse nightclub shooter's father was at a Clinton rally. This person was uninvited and no one knew he was there, especially since Mrs. Clinton had condemned his son's actions in no uncertain terms.

        The term  Trump uses , by the way "Mrs. Clinton's judges" creates a sense in the minds of the unwashed and under informed that no one else has any say in the process. Ask Robert Bork and Harriet Meirs! In truth, just under 20% of all USSC nominees historically have been rejected. In recent history, since the Reagan coronation in 1981, of 16 persons proposed for the USSC  by Presidents, 5 or just under 1/3 have been rejected. In point of fact, the primary concern should be control of the US Senate, since the Majority Party controls the Judiciary committee, which can "kill" a candidate's chances.  

        Sorry for the history/government lesson, but I'm committed to the stamping out of ignorance where it lives.         

Another Monday, Another Lie

        Another Monday, another Soduku/Jumble/Crossword, another Good Morning America and yes, Virginia, another topic for discussion!  Our "esteemed" Governor, Rick "Skeletor" Scott heads a new super PAC (thanks, Citizens United) which, while nominally formed in support of Der Trump, is actually aimed at hurting the Clintons. There are several things wrong with the message of their first effort. It focuses on the Clintons, both Bill and Hill, and seems to cast aspersions on the family's wealth, which according to public records it over states by double.

        The first allegation is that somehow it was ill gotten gains. This in spite of the fact that Clinton foundation filings are public record, and of the over $2 billion donated by a very wide spectrum of nations and individuals, absolutely none of it has been taken by the Clintons as salary. The filings, unlike Trump's murky tax issues, are public record, and have been scrutinized to death. Scott, says it "doesn't pass the smell test". This of course from a man who knowingly supervised a corporation (Columbia HCA) which ran two sets of books (his former accountant admits it!)  and defrauded Medicare of a minimum of $8 billion. Scott should be doing these ads from a federal penitentiary, not the Florida Governor's mansion in Tallahassee.

        Second and far more revealing about the nature of Scott's psyche, as well as those of other Far Right sour grapes artists, is the apparent awe over the Clinton(s) speaking fees. Apparently to these retrograde  dullards whose lives revolve around profit, only they are allowed to benefit from their public efforts. The complaints re: the Clintons' fees for speeches are specious at best, and reveal more about those making the allegations than perhaps they would like.  The focus of the whiny complaint from Scott is that they (apparently, I don't know any other way to interpret it) "make too much" for speeches. The audience is , I suppose,  led to believe that they must be providing "special" concessions in exchange.

        There isn't any real (as in actionable in court) allegation that the relatively high Clinton fees are quid pro quo in nature, rather just the typical election year finger pointing without substance. So, I thought, "just how much DO they make and how does it compare with other contemporary speakers with similar backgrounds?"  What I found is revelatory. The Clintons from 2006 to the present have averaged about $250,000 per speech. Some have paid higher , some less.  This has amounted to what is now a sizeable family fortune, although not as measured against their political contemporaries. Right off the bat. "W" almost a functional illiterate, cleared a tidy $15 mil from a ghost written (actual author Christopher Michel)  book! I will show speaking fees in tabular form for simplicity  below:

Donald Trump: $1.5 million per speech times 17 speeches! for the Learning Annex's "Wealth Expos" in 2006-2007.  That is about a third  of the Clinton's net worth in less than two years for just these speeches, there were many others as well! Trump has made many more at  higher  numbers than the Clintons, including  $1.75 million in 2015. The Clintons meanwhile pay a marginal tax rate of over 30%  for their efforts. Wait for Trump's returns if we ever see them!

Ronald Reagan: $1 million per speech for several speeches in Japan (in 1989!)

  

Rudolph Giuliani: One of Mrs. Clinton's most vocal critics, received $9.2 million for speeches in just 13 months from 2006-2007

George W.   Bush: this semi-coherent ex Pres. routinely gets $150,000 per speech for more than  200 speeches since 2009. Condoleezza Rice earns the same amount but speaks far less, which is odd, since she has sooo much more to say. For the math impaired, "W" "earned" about $30 million for speeches closed to the press.

And the topper:   In March of  1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company. Eight days after the initial raid, Rick Scott signed his last SEC report HCA CEO. Four months later Scott  resigned  as Chairman and CEO.  He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement, and left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.

And Rick Scott didn't even have to make a speech!